Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
Guidance of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assists applicants in the preparation and presentation of their market registration applications by describing elements and information/data requirements for the risk assessment and monitoring of GMOs. This explanatory note to the guidance: (1) clarifies the scope and methodology for literature searching performed in the context of applications for market authorisation of GMOs submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 before and after the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 entered into force; annual post-market environmental monitoring reports on GMOs authorised in the EU market; and GMO applications for the renewed market authorisation of GM food/feed authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; and (2) provides detailed recommendations on how to conduct and report systematic/extensive literature searches, and present the results of any scoping reviews.
Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings are self-adherent, multilayer foam dressings designed for use on the heel and sacrum aiming to prevent pressure ulcers. The dressings are used in addition to standard care protocols for pressure ulcer prevention. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings for evaluation. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company's submission. Thirteen studies (four randomised controlled trials and nine nonrandomised comparative studies) were included. The majority of studies compared Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings (plus standard care) with standard care alone. Comparative evidence for Mepilex Border Heel dressings was limited. A meta-analysis indicated a non-statistically significant difference in favour of Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings for pressure ulcer incidence [RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.22-1.18)]. The company produced a de novo cost model, which was critiqued by the EAC. After the EAC updated input parameters, cost savings of £19 per patient compared with standard care alone for pressure ulcer prevention were estimated with Mepilex Border dressings predicted to be cost saving in 57% of iterations. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee reviewed the evidence and judged that, although Mepilex Border Heel and Sacrum dressings have potential to prevent pressure ulcers in people who are considered to be at risk in acute care settings, further evidence is required to address uncertainties around the claimed benefits of the dressings and the incidence of pressure ulcers in an NHS acute-care setting. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 40.
PURPOSE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of new technologies typically include "background" costs (eg, all "related" health care costs other than the specific technology under evaluation) as well as drug costs. In oncology, these are often expensive. The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, the extra costs and QALYs associated with each extra period of survival) calculates the ratio of background costs to QALYs during post-progression. With high background costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) can become less favorable as survival increases and the ICER moves closer to the marginal cost-effectiveness ratio, making cost-effectiveness prohibitive. This study assessed different methods to determine whether high ICERs are caused by high drug costs, high "background costs" or a combination of both and how different approaches can alter the impact of background costs on the ICER where the marginal cost-effectiveness ratio is close to, or above, the cost-effectiveness threshold.
METHODS: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence oncology technology appraisals published or updated between October 2012 and October 2017 were reviewed. A case study was selected, and the CEA was replicated. Three modeling approaches were tested on the case study model.
RESULTS: Applying one-off "transition" costs during post-progression reduced the ongoing "incremental" costs of survival, which meant that the marginal cost-effectiveness ratio was substantially reduced and problems associated with additional survival were less likely to impact the ICER. Similarly, the use of two methods of additional utility weighting for end-of-life cases meant that the marginal cost-effectiveness ratio was reduced proportionally, again lessening the impact of increased survival.
CONCLUSION: High ICERs can be caused by factors other than the cost of the drug being assessed. The economic models should be correct and valid, reflecting the true nature of marginal survival. Further research is needed to assess how alternative approaches to the measurement and application of background costs and benefits may provide an accurate assessment of the incremental benefits of life-extending oncology drugs. If marginal survival costs are incorrectly calculated (ie, by summing total post-progressed costs and dividing by the number of baseline months in that state), then the costs of marginal survival are likely to be overstated in economic models.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the first line approach for treating Barrett's oesophagus (BE) related neoplasia globally. The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) recommend EET with combined endoscopic resection (ER) for visible dysplasia followed by endoscopic ablation in patients with both low and high grade dysplasia (LGD and HGD). The aim of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis for EET for treatment of all grades of dysplasia in BE patients.
METHODS: A Markov cohort model with a lifetime time horizon was used to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis. A hypothetical cohort of UK patients diagnosed with BE entered the model. Patients in the treatment arm with LGD and HGD received EET and patients with non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) received endoscopic surveillance only. In the comparator arm, patients with LGD, HGD and NDBE received endoscopic surveillance only. A UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective was adopted and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on key input parameters.
RESULTS: EET for patients with LGD and HGD arising in BE is cost-effective compared to endoscopic surveillance alone (lifetime ICER £3006 per quality adjusted life year [QALY] gained). The results show that, as the time horizon increases, the treatment becomes more cost-effective. The 5 year financial impact to the UK NHS of introducing EET is £7.1m.
CONCLUSIONS: EET for patients with low and high grade BE dysplasia, following updated guidelines from the BSG, has been shown to be cost-effective for patients with BE in the UK.
BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab was approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 and by the European Medicines Agency in January 2018. These approvals were based on two pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs), OPERA I and OPERA II, comparing ocrelizumab 600 mg with an active comparator, interferon ß-1a 44 µg (Rebif), and the first trial with positive results in patients with PPMS, which compared ocrelizumab with placebo. However, direct evidence of the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in RMS compared with other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved for RMS is not available from RCTs. In the absence of such RCTs, network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compare indirectly the relative efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab with all other approved DMTs for the treatment of RMS.
METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, trial registers, relevant conference websites and health technology assessment agency websites. Eligible RCTs evaluated approved treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS) in which more than 75% of patients had a relapsing form of MS. NMAs were conducted for four efficacy and three safety outcomes, and treatment hierarchies were generated for each outcome using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.
RESULTS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has superior efficacy to 10 of the 17 treatments in the 12-week confirmed disability progression network and 12 of the 17 treatments in the annualized relapse rate network (both including placebo). The efficacy of ocrelizumab was comparable with the other treatments in both networks. In the serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events networks, ocrelizumab demonstrated a safety profile comparable with all other treatments (including placebo). SUCRA values consistently ranked ocrelizumab among the most effective or tolerable treatments across all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that ocrelizumab has an efficacy superior to or comparable with all other currently approved DMTs across all endpoints analyzed, and a similar safety profile, indicating it offers a valuable package for the treatment of patients with RMS.
The use of patient-reported outcome instruments (PRO) in clinical trials in order to capture the impacts of treatment on patients is widespread. However, regulatory agencies have over the past decade highlighted the need for PROs that are fit for purpose and target relevant aspects of the patient's condition. Many legacy PROs were developed with little patient input, are lengthy, and may lack relevance having not been modified or adapted as medical treatments have advanced. Computer-adaptive test (CAT) systems provide the possibility of targeted approaches to capturing patient-centric data, while minimising patient burden. Coupled with greater patient input in the development of PROs, CAT offers the opportunity of overcoming the shortcomings of the previous generation of PROs. This paper describes the some of the issues facing legacy PROs, current regulatory guidance, and initiatives, such as the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), as well as the early signs of use of CAT to capture PRO data in clinical trials.
Arguably, the most common structure currently adopted for oncology modelling is the three-state partitioned survival model with the following states: stable disease, post-progression and dead. This design can, therefore, be adopted to capture the progressive nature of cancer. This chapter outlines the three-state model approach as well as introducing several other key aspects of economic modelling in oncology.
